alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Pub Crawl Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter J. Kremer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Peter J. Kremer By: Peter J. Kremer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: October 12, 2011     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8938 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8938

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude overtime 
     compensation from gross income for purposes of the income tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2024

 Mr. Fulcher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude overtime 
     compensation from gross income for purposes of the income tax.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keep Every Extra Penny Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION FROM GROSS INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 
139I the following new section:

``SEC. 139J. OVERTIME COMPENSATION.

    ``Gross income shall not include overtime compensation required 
under section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 139I the following new item:

``Sec. 139J. Overtime compensation.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts received after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered January 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00137-CV

No. 05-15-00139-CV

No. 05-15-00140-CV

IN RE ERIK BOWEN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-80668-09, 401-80666-09, 401-80667-09

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Skip to content

FEMA.gov
      - Contact Us
      - Site Map
      - Frequently Asked Questions
      - Español

Advanced Search

      - Home
      - Disaster Information
      - Plan Ahead
      - Apply for Assistance
      - Recover & Rebuild
      - About Us

        -  Safe Rooms  Funding and InitiativesCase Studies
-  Frequently Asked Questions  Safe Room ResourcesPrint PreviewTaking Shelter From the Storm
Safe Room Construction Plans and Specifications

The safe room construction plans from FEMA 320, Taking Shelter From the Storm, are available here in DWG and PDF format. 

Important Legal Notice
DescriptionDrawing Number  TitleT-01DWGPDFIndex SheetG-01DWGPDFIn-ground Safe Room - Sections and DetailsIG-01DWGPDFBasement Lean-to Safe RoomB-01DWGPDFBasement Safe Room - Corner LocationB-02DWGPDFCMU - Concrete Alternative PlansAG-01DWGPDFCMU - Concrete Wall SectionsAG-02DWGPDFCMU - Concrete Sections Ceiling AlternativesAG-03DWGPDFVentilation DetailsAG-04DWGPDFWood-Frame Safe Room Plan Plywood Sheathing with CMU InfillAG-05DWGPDFWood-Frame Safe Room Plan Plywood and Steel Wall SheathingAG-06DWGPDFWood-Frame Safe Room - Foundation SectionsAG-07DWGPDFInsulating Concrete Form PlansAG-08DWGPDFInsulating Concrete Form SectionsAG-09DWGPDFMiscellaneous DetailsMS-01DWGPDFDoor Details and Signage DetailsMS-02DWGPDFMaterials ListsML-01DWGPDFMaterials Lists (Cont'd)ML-02DWGPDFImportant Legal Notice
Limit of Liability: The designs in this booklet are based on extensive research of the causes and effects of windstorm damage to buildings. Safe rooms designed and built to these designs should provide a high degree of occupant protection during extreme windstorms (tornadoes and hurricanes). Any substitution of either materials or design concepts may decrease the level of occupant protection and/or increase the possibility of personal injury during an extreme wind event.

Because it is not possible to predict or test all conditions that may occur during extreme windstorms, or control the quality of construction, among other things, the designer does not warrant the design.

The designer neither manufactures nor sells safe rooms built from this design. The designers have not made and do not make any representation, warranty, or covenant, express or implied, with respect to the design, condition, quality, durability, operation, fitness for use, or suitability of the safe room in any respect whatsoever. Designers shall not be obligated or liable for actual, incidental, consequential, or other damages of or to users of safe rooms or any other person or entity arising out of or in connection with the use, condition, and/or performance of safe rooms from this design or from the maintenance thereof.

Last Modified: Monday, 17-Nov-2008 08:29:09 EST
- Home
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Important Notices
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act Data
- USA.gov
- DHS

FEMA 500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472Disaster Assistance: (800) 621-FEMA, TTY (800) 462-7585
# C_2007235EN.01003301.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/33

---

Action brought on 17 August 2007 — Islamaj v Commission

(Case F-84/07)

(2007/C 235/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Agim Islamaj (Grimbergen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare unlawful Article 2 of the Commission decision on detailed rules governing the promotion procedure for officials paid from research appropriations in the general budget (in both the version of 16 June 2004 and that of 20 July 2005); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful Article 2 of the Commission decision on detailed rules governing the promotion procedure for officials paid from research appropriations in the general budget (in both the version of 16 June 2004 and that of 20 July 2005);

| — | annul the Commission decision to cancel the 38.5 points from the applicant's accrued promotion points which he had accumulated as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision to cancel the 38.5 points from the applicant's accrued promotion points which he had accumulated as a member of the temporary staff;

| — | annul the Commission decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 5 in the 2006 promotion exercise and, in so far as it is necessary, that dismissing his appeal to the Promotion Committee for the purpose of reconstituting his accrued promotion points; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 5 in the 2006 promotion exercise and, in so far as it is necessary, that dismissing his appeal to the Promotion Committee for the purpose of reconstituting his accrued promotion points;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who started working at the Commission on 1 May 2000 as a member of the temporary staff and who was posted to the Joint Research Centre, Ispra (Italy), was appointed an official in that centre with effect from 16 April 2004. On 16 April 2005, he was transferred to DG Trade. By letter of 16 June 2006, he was informed that the points which he had accrued as a member of the temporary staff had been cancelled, pursuant to the first contested decision, because he had effected a transfer to a post coming under the ‘administration’ part of the general budget before a period of two years had expired from his recruitment as a probationary official in respect of a post coming under the ‘research’ part of that budget.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on very similar pleas in law to those relied on in Case F-33/07 (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 26.

1

---
Summary of Status of Convention 

Instrument Date of entry into force

No. of Contracting 

States / Parties % world tonnage*

 IMO Convention 17-Mar-58 170 97.16

SOLAS 1974 25-May-80 162 99.20

SOLAS Protocol 1978 1-May-81 117 96.86

SOLAS Protocol 1988 3-Feb-00 104 95.70

Stockholm Agreement 1996 1-Apr-97 11 8.59

LL 1966 21-Jul-68 161 99.19

LL Protocol 1988 3-Feb-00 98 95.96

TONNAGE 1969 18-Jul-82 152 99.06

COLREG 1972 15-Jul-77 155 98.71

CSC 1972 6-Sep-77 78 60.95

 1993 amendments Not yet in force 9 6.18

SFV Protocol 1993 Not yet in force 17 19.78

STCW 1978 28-Apr-84 157 99.23

STCW-F 1995 29-Sep-12 16 4.37

SAR 1979 22-Jun-85 104 62.49

STP 1971 2-Jan-74 17 23.98

SPACE STP 1973 2-Jun-77 16 23.33

IMSO 1976 Convention 16-Jul-79 97 94.92

 1998 amendments 31-Jul-01 40 26.91

 2008 amendments** Not yet in force** 10 3.65

FAL 1965 05-Mar-67 115 90.77

MARPOL 73/78 (Annex I/II) 2-Oct-83 152 99.20

MARPOL 73/78 (Annex III) 1-Jul-92 138 97.59

MARPOL 73/78 (Annex IV) 27-Sep-03 131 89.65

MARPOL 73/78 (Annex V) 31-Dec-88 144 98.47

MARPOL Protocol 1997 (Annex VI) 19-May-05 72 94.30

LC 1972 30-Aug-75 87 67.17

 1978 amendments Not yet in force 20 17.49

LC Protocol 1996 24-Mar-06 42 35.64

INTERVENTION 1969 6-May-75 87 75.10

INTERVENTION Protocol 1973 30-Mar-83 54 50.36

CLC 1969 19-Jun-75 36 2.59

CLC Protocol 1976 8-Apr-81 53 56.41

CLC Protocol 1992 30-May-96 130 97.19

FUND Protocol 1976*** 22-Nov-94 31 47.33

FUND Protocol 1992 30-May-96 111 91.22

FUND Protocol 2000  27-Jun-01 - -

FUND Protocol 2003 3-Mar-05 28 20.44

NUCLEAR 1971 15-Jul-75 17 20.38

PAL 1974 28-Apr-87 35 45.88

PAL Protocol 1976 30-Apr-89 26 45.44

PAL Protocol 1990 Not yet in force 6 0.85

PAL Protocol 2002 Not yet in force 9 2.11

LLMC 1976 1-Dec-86 53 53.75

LLMC Protocol 1996 13-May-04 46 45.95

as at 31 January 2013
Summary of Status of Convention 

SUA 1988 1-Mar-92 160 94.63

SUA Protocol 1988 1-Mar-92 148 89.65

SUA 2005 28-Jul-10 23 30.49

SUA Protocol 2005 28-Jul-10 19 29.75

SALVAGE 1989 14-Jul-96 63 50.48

OPRC 1990 13-May-95 104 70.8

HNS Convention 1996 Not yet in force 14 13.61

HNS PROT 2010 Not yet in force - -

OPRC/HNS 2000 14-Jun-07 28 45.35

BUNKERS Convention 2001 21-Nov-08 68 90.00

AFS Convention 2001 17-Sep-08 64 83.04

BWM Convention 2004 Not yet in force 36 29.07

NAIROBI WRC 2007 Not yet in force 6 2.81

HONG KONG Convention Not yet in force - -

Cape Town Agreement 2012 Not yet in force - -

** ** Entered into force by means of tacit acceptance procedure on 27 June 2011

*Source: IHS-Fairplay - World Fleet Statistics 31 December 2011

** At its twentieth session, the IMSO Assembly decided to apply the amendments provisionally, with effect from 

 6 October 2008, pending their formal entry into force

*** Consequent on the cessation of the 1971 Fund Convention on 24 May 2002 

 this Protocol is considered having ceased with effect from the same date.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8750 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8750

 To designate the exclusive economic zone of the United States as the 
  ``Donald John Trump Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2024

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the exclusive economic zone of the United States as the 
  ``Donald John Trump Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE DONALD JOHN TRUMP EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 
              OF THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) Designation.--The exclusive economic zone of the United States, 
as established by Presidential Proclamation Numbered 5030, dated March 
10, 1983, is designated as the ``Donald John Trump Exclusive Economic 
Zone of the United States''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the exclusive economic 
zone of the United States is deemed to be a reference to the ``Donald 
John Trump Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007294EN.01000602.xml

| 6.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4351 — Wolseley/DT Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 294/05)

On 6 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4351. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4351. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# C_2007269EN.01006402.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/64

---

Action brought on 19 September 2007 — Pfizer v OHIM — Isdin (ISDIN 14-8.000)

(Case T-356/07)

(2007/C 269/117)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde, lawyers, and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2007 in Case R 565/2006-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2007 in Case R 565/2006-1; and

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘ISDIN 14-8.000’ for products in among others class 5 — Community trade mark No 1 243 633

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Isdin, SA

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision insofar as it declared the invalidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of the applicant's right to be heard pursuant to Article 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and violation of Article 52 read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation.

Pleas in law:

---
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. American Forces Information Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  American Forces Information Service, Department of Defense 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Shipping list no.: 2001-0211-P. 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  2000-2010 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Defense billboard ; 142; Defense billboard (1988) ; # 142. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  154 × 43 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Zeutschel OS 12000 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4051

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Jose Parks, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2007

Filed: October 4, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 concluded Jose Parks (Parks) was a career offender under

United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1 based on Parks’s prior felony convictions

for escape and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Parks

appeals, arguing the district court erred in (1) applying the preponderance of the

evidence standard, rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, to determine

whether Parks’s prior convictions qualify as crimes of violence or controlled

substance offenses, and (2) concluding Parks’s escape conviction qualifies as a crime
-2-

of violence. We disagree. “Determining whether a prior conviction is a ‘crime of

violence’ for § 4B1.2 purposes is a question of law, not a question of fact found by the

judge.” United States v. Bockes, 447 F.3d 1090, 1093 n.4 (8th Cir. 2006). A district

court need not apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to determine whether a

prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. See

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005) (“Any fact (other than a prior

conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum

authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be

admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (emphasis

added). Parks’s escape conviction qualifies as a crime of violence. See United States

v. Nation, 243 F.3d 467, 472 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding “escape is categorically a crime

of violence”). 

We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________